Anirudh Dabas

I do agree with most of what you just said. Only that I think that philosophy is a worthwhile endeavor. While science may be able to provide us with answers to some of our questions, it is philosophy that can help us to make sense of those answers, to ask the right questions, to challenge our assumptions, and to think more critically about the world around us. They aren't mutually exclusive disciplines. I think Philosophy's journey is not about reaching a final destination but about the continuous process of intellectual exploration and the pursuit of deeper understanding. but yeah, Science has a more tangible and immediate impact on our lives and a better track record of success.

Right. Well, I'm not saying philosophers can't learn—I mean, they've been grappling with the meaning of life for centuries, right? It's just that reaching a consensus on free will sounds a bit like herding cats. You know, philosophers and their love for debating the nuances of everything. But hey, if we could quantify free will and turn it into a neat little metric, that'd be quite the party trick. Imagine measuring your culpability score on a scale of 1 to 10 before entering a courtroom. "Your Honor, I may have committed a crime, but my free will score is off the charts, so cut me some slack!" It's like turning ethics into a game show. As for prisons becoming secure holiday camps, I would say that it is a bit too simplistic. There are many reasons why people end up in prison, and not all of them are due to a lack of free will. Some people are simply in the wrong place at the wrong time, while others are victims of circumstance. I would argue that this is a dangerous and misleading generalization. It suggests that some people are more deserving of punishment than others, simply because they have had more opportunities to make different choices. This is not only unfair, but it also ignores the complex factors that contribute to criminal behavior, such as poverty, mental illness, and addiction. A more nuanced approach would be to recognize that free will is not an all-or-nothing proposition. We all have some degree of freedom, but it is constrained by a variety of factors, both internal and external. Our choices are not always easy, and they are often influenced by forces beyond our control.

1. How would you define the mind's reality in a way that separates it from its plasticity? 2. What aspects of the mind do you consider to be inherently plastic or non-plastic? 3. How do you reconcile the mind's plasticity with its fundamental nature as a real and influential entity?

@AIkonoklazt @iNow argues that the mind is not a tangible entity, while you argue that it is, correct? iNow's main point is that the mind is constantly changing and adapting, and that this ability to change is what allows us to learn and remember. Your main point is that the mind is a product of the brain, which is a physical organ. The brain is constantly changing and adapting, and this ability to change is what allows us to learn and remember. If the mind were a completely separate entity from the brain, then it is unclear how it could be affected by the brain's plasticity. However, if the mind is a product of the brain, then it is possible that the brain's plasticity could also affect the mind. The use of the pronoun "it" to refer to the mind is also a point of contention. Right, If the mind is not tangible, then it is unclear what "it" is referring to. However, it is possible to use "it" to refer to the mind in a metaphorical sense, just as we might use "it" to refer to a computer program or a piece of software. Both of these points are valid. Ultimately, I think, the answer to this question depends on how we define the term "tangible." If we define it as something that can be seen or touched, then the mind is not tangible. However, if we define it as something that is real and has an effect on the world, then the mind could be considered tangible. The debate over the tangibility of the mind is a whole other debate, and there is no easy answer. Ultimately, the goal of any discussion should be to understand each other better, not to change each other's minds. If you both can keep this in mind, you may be able to have a more productive conversation.

It's a teeny-tiny rock, only about 100 kilometers in diameter. Landing a spacecraft on that celestial pebble is like trying to parallel park a spaceship in rush-hour traffic – not for the faint of heart. And let's not forget the interplanetary travel challenges. You're looking at a journey sandwiched between the red and the giant. Maybe it's a bit of space FOMO

+1. The mind, far from being an isolated and unchangeable entity, is intricately woven into the fabric of its environment, subject to influences that continually shape its operations.

It's like you're reading out of the "Troll Handbook for Dummies."

Are you trying to be the Shakespeare of internet absurdity, or is this just your way of getting attention?

^^ @Chris Sawatsky It's not expanding into anything; it's the entirety of existence. Describing the expansion as "outward" might indeed lead to a mental image of an expanding bubble, but the nature of the universe's expansion is more nuanced. It's the fabric of space itself that is stretching, affecting the distances between galaxies rather than pushing into some pre-existing void.

Hey there, So, you're suggesting that if philosophers could just magic up a consensus on how much free will we have, we'd all skip happily into a utopia where prisons are transformed into secure holiday camps. Well, color me skeptical! Let's not pretend that human behavior is as predictable as a toddler's tantrum. I mean, give people a bit of credit; we're not all just puppets waiting for a philosopher to cut our strings. keeping it real – utopia might be overrated, but so is the idea that we're all just innocent victims of our non-existent free will. Cheers

On the one hand, there is no direct evidence to prove or disprove the existence of the multiverse. So, in that sense, it is not a theory in the traditional scientific sense. However, the multiverse is a very well-developed and mathematically consistent idea. It is also compatible with a number of other well-established theories in physics, such as quantum mechanics and string theory. So, in that sense, it could be considered a theory, even if it cannot be directly tested. That's a valid point. Fiction doesn't need to adhere to scientific accuracy in order to be enjoyable. In the case of the Flash series, the portrayal of the multiverse is more focused on exploring the emotional and dramatic implications of parallel universes than on providing a rigorous scientific explanation. That said, the Flash series does draw on some of the theoretical concepts of parallel universes that have been proposed by scientists. For example, the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics suggests that every quantum event leads to multiple, branching universes, each representing a different outcome. This idea is reflected in the Flash series, where the characters travel to different Earths that have diverged from our own as a result of different choices being made. I thought this topic would interest and provoke more interesting conversations, but it seems like we've reached a dead end.

It seems like we're going down a rabbit hole here. I'd like to circle back.

I don’t know what a realm is in context of neuroscience, but if mental events are not solely due to physical inputs, then what else do you recommend we measure and look at to better understand them? There are a number of different theories about what might be responsible for mental events. This is a question that philosophers and neuroscientists have been grappling with for centuries. Like I said, My way to think about it is that the mental realm may be emergent from the physical realm, but not reducible to it. There is no scientific consensus on whether or not the mind is emergent, only some evidence to suggest that it is. We do have some ways of measuring and looking at mental events, but none of these methods can directly measure mental events. Instead, they measure physical processes in the brain and body that are correlated with mental events. While there are a number of different theories that have been proposed. The idea that mental events are not solely due to physical inputs is a complex one, and there is no single agreed-upon explanation for why this might be the case. As it stands today, there is no way to definitively argue that something other than physical processes lead to mentation. This is a pessimistic view, but it is not entirely unfounded. This is because we do not yet fully understand how the brain works or how it produces consciousness. However, I believe that it is important to remain open to the possibility that there may be more to consciousness than just physical processes. Even if they challenge our current understanding of the mind. Moving on, I struggle to agree with you here. Why would that be unlikely? Well...We don't have any good examples of information-processing systems that are conscious. We have computers that can process information very quickly and efficiently, but they don't seem to be conscious in any meaningful way. They don't have subjective experiences, and they don't seem to be aware of themselves or their surroundings. It's not very clear how information-processing alone could give rise to consciousness. But then again, who knows.

The 'Flash' television series/ comics offer an imaginative portrayal of the multiverse, featuring a diverse range of alternate realities—Earth-2, Earth-19, and beyond—each with unique adaptations of familiar characters, altered histories, and differing physical laws. In the show, these alternate Earths are interconnected through a conceptual framework involving breaches, vibrating frequencies, and the Speed Force, enabling characters to traverse these parallel worlds. The series explores intriguing possibilities, depicting alternate versions of the same characters and events, introducing variations in their personalities, backgrounds, and interactions, thus creating a rich tapestry of parallel universes. In the realm of theoretical physics, the concept of a multiverse is a subject of theoretical discussion rather than direct observation. Various scientific theories, such as quantum mechanics, string theory, and cosmological models, have proposed the existence of parallel universes. For instance, the many-worlds interpretation in quantum mechanics suggests that every quantum event leads to multiple, branching universes, each representing a different outcome. In string theory, the idea of a "landscape" of multiple universes emerges from the intricate configurations of extra dimensions. The alignment between 'The Flash' series and scientific theories of parallel universes lies in the exploration of diverse realities coexisting alongside our own, often driven by unique physical laws. However, discrepancies arise in the creative liberties taken by the show, such as the ease of travel between worlds and the nature of these alternate realities. Scientific models present a more complex, theoretical, and often mathematically derived understanding of multiverses, involving principles of quantum mechanics, cosmology, and string theory, where access or observation of these parallel universes remains hypothetical or in the domain of advanced theoretical physics. The question remains: to what extent can the speculative and imaginative narrative of the 'Flash' series be seen as reflecting or deviating from the more elaborate, intricate, and nuanced theoretical frameworks of multiverse models proposed in scientific discourse, considering the similarities, divergences, and complexities of the two perspectives?

Hmm, this might be confusing. You say 'the higher-level event (cognition or mentation) is not determined by the lower-level event (physical or biochemical process)'. I think it is, but not via causation, but supervenience. I do not know if my figurative language helps here: I would say that we can only speak about causation 'between peers'. A firing neuron affects another neuron. Maybe you mean that the same mental phenomenon can be based on different neural constellations. Just as text, text, text and text differ physically, but represent the same: the word 'text'. I understand your point about causation. It's true that we can only really speak about causation between events that are on the same level. For example, a firing neuron can cause another firing neuron. But the relationship between the physical and mental realms is probably more complex than that. I think it's helpful to think of the physical realm as the foundation upon which the mental realm can emerge. The physical realm provides the building blocks for the mental realm, but it doesn't directly determine it. For example, the same mental phenomenon, such as a thought or feeling, can be based on different neural constellations. Like you said, just as the word "text" can be represented by different physical patterns, so too can a mental phenomenon be represented by different neural patterns. This suggests that the mental realm is emergent, meaning that it arises from the complex interplay of physical processes. The mental realm has its own unique properties and dynamics that cannot be reduced to the physical realm. So, to answer your question directly, I do mean that the same mental phenomenon can be based on different neural constellations. This is because I believe the mental realm is emergent, and its properties are not simply determined by the physical realm. Maybe the question was asked for effect, rather than to elicit an answer. Don't get me wrong, I totally agree with you. But, just for fun: (these views are speculative and there is no scientific consensus on any of them. However, they do provide some possible answers to the question.) Consciousness could be a fundamental property of the universe, like gravity or electromagnetism. I believe the term is panpsychism. Consciousness could be a product of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics allows for the possibility of non-local events, which could be responsible for the emergence of consciousness. Consciousness could be a product of information processing. It could be that consciousness arises from the complex interactions of information-processing systems, such as the human brain. (I know, it isn't very likely.) Consciousness could be a product of evolution. Based on the idea that consciousness evolved as a way for organisms to better understand and interact with their environment. I think it's certainly possible. snapping back to reality, I think it's right to challenge those who disagree to show what else could lead to mentation besides physical processes. If they claim that there is something else, then they should be able to identify it and explain how it works. ✌️